So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings? Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Tsal manifestations are similar to the crystal rays that are produced when the sun hits the crystal.

“The path of the supreme yoga it is not the path of accomplished sages of the past. Whoever enters onto the path of the sages of the past will end up gripped by the sicknesses of the path - meditation, attachment, and exertion.”Thig le drug pa.

“Everything of the universe of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arises as the enlightened energy of the one self-perfected Natural Presence. But these teachers still mistakenly teach that disciples should fabricate enlightenment by applying discipline, renunciation, interruption, purification and transformation”.

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings? Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

Dzogchen defers to false-aspectarian Yogācāra principle of a container universe to explain this issue.

The uniqueness of the Dzogchen cosmogony is maintained up through the onset of the imputing ignorance [kun brtags] and then the ālaya forms and you can look to the Yogācāra container universe model.

The collective traces of sentient beings manifest a common reality that coincides with the karmic disposition of the beings involved. Those beings can interact like we do in our everyday lives, and in more subtle ways, even influence each other’s perceptions like the woman who terrorized her village by appearing as a tiger, for example.

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings? Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

I had the understanding that there is one basis not many, and that sentient brings each perceive the play of rtsal through their own obscurations.

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings? Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

I had the understanding that there is one basis not many, and that sentient brings each perceive the play of rtsal through their own obscurations.

DS

The basis is the nature of your mind. Every sentient being is endowed with a mind and each mind has a nature. Therefore each sentient being has a basis.

Those bases are singular in expression, but numerous in number. Much like the wetness of water is singular in expression, for every expression of wetness is the same, but numerous in number, because there are countless bodies of water.

It seems odd that realized beings can affect the external world (not appearances) in miraculous ways. Longchenpa clearly discusses how external objects can’t be the mind, but then it seems that the light body is only an “internal” experience (which makes sense). The only issue is that in the light body, one can penetrate mountains and so on. This must mean that since one is separated from the ordinary body, one can travel anywhere. I imagine that the ordinary body must be somewhere (in a retreat house, for example), while the light body is experiencing the sambhogakaya and all the realms. There is no reason that the ordinary body must dissolve as an object in the world. Maybe the dissolution is only an internal appearance?

So if a practitioner realizes the light body, then beings in samsara would have no idea. It must be the case that when the king bowed to padmasambhava and his head went through guru Rinpoche, the king must have had a high level of realization/clarity. Otherwise, ordinary beings would hit their head on padmasambhava. But then how does padmasambhava plunge a wood phurbe in a rock? How is rtsal related to the 5 external elements (besides rtsal being the “internal” essence of the external elements)?

So, if all appearances are rtsal manifestations of the basis of each individual, then is it the case that the rtsal manifestations are shared “vision” among samsaric sentient beings?

Also, if all appearances are the energy of the basis of each individual, then how are appearances shared by sentient beings and how are sentient beings (with their individual consciousnesses) apparent to other sentient beings? Wouldn’t the appearance of other sentient beings only be the rtsal manifestations of one’s own basis?

Thanks!

I had the understanding that there is one basis not many, and that sentient brings each perceive the play of rtsal through their own obscurations.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Also, interesting to note that Malcolm refers to the basis as the “seed of budhahood,” i.e. the Sugatagarbha or Tathagatagarbha, in deluded sentient beings. Interesting thought, an individual’s basis as a seed. I believe the gelugpas would agree

Also, interesting to note that Malcolm refers to the basis as the “seed of budhahood,” i.e. the Sugatagarbha or Tathagatagarbha, in deluded sentient beings. Interesting thought, an individual’s basis as a seed. I believe the gelugpas would agree

I don't think that tatagathgarba view has much in common with dzogchen view.

“The path of the supreme yoga it is not the path of accomplished sages of the past. Whoever enters onto the path of the sages of the past will end up gripped by the sicknesses of the path - meditation, attachment, and exertion.”Thig le drug pa.

“Everything of the universe of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arises as the enlightened energy of the one self-perfected Natural Presence. But these teachers still mistakenly teach that disciples should fabricate enlightenment by applying discipline, renunciation, interruption, purification and transformation”.

Also, interesting to note that Malcolm refers to the basis as the “seed of budhahood,” i.e. the Sugatagarbha or Tathagatagarbha, in deluded sentient beings. Interesting thought, an individual’s basis as a seed. I believe the gelugpas would agree

I don't think that tatagathgarba view has much in common with dzogchen view.

It is a bit of an overstatement to claim the view of Dzogchen has nothing in common with tathāgatagarbha view. Longchenpa would strongly disagree with you. After all, he spends the entirety of chapter three of the Tshig don mdzod explaining the precise relevance of tathāgatagarbha view to Dzogchen.

Further, the entire subject of chapter 39 of the Kun byed rgyal po is tathāgatagarbha, called here "jinagarbha."

Then, bodhicitta, the All-Creating King, taught that his nature was the jinagarbha, lacking deviation and obscuration in everything.

Further, the Mirror of the Essence of Vajrasattva states:

The tathāgatagarbha exists intrinsically in all sentient beings. That exists just as sesame seeds are permeated with oil. Its basis — it is based on the material aggregate. It’s location — it is located in the center of the heart.

The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra states:

The diverse miraculous display arises from state of inseparability, the ultimate sugatagarbha.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Also, interesting to note that Malcolm refers to the basis as the “seed of budhahood,” i.e. the Sugatagarbha or Tathagatagarbha, in deluded sentient beings. Interesting thought, an individual’s basis as a seed. I believe the gelugpas would agree

I don't think that tatagathgarba view has much in common with dzogchen view.

It is a bit of an overstatement to claim the view of Dzogchen has nothing in common with tathāgatagarbha view.

Maybe or maybe not.

First of all the view of tathagatagarba is that all beings have an unmanifest potential that is covered by temporary stains.
This can be categorised under two aspects:the naturally present potential at the time of the basis and the manifest potential that gets ultimately expressed through the media of the variety of practices that the lower yanas employ.
Utaratantra says the following:"Like a treasure or a tree grown from a fruit
The potential should be understood to have two aspects:
Natural presence that persists from the time without begining
And perfection that derives from proper cultivation"

The tatagatagarbha chapter from Longhenpa's trilogy of rest explains that beings nature of mind from the standpoint of appearance is completely and in full possession of the qualities of rupakaya and from the point of view of the emptiness aspect it has all the qualities of dharmakaya. HOWEVER, the mind's nature is obscured by temporary stains and is not YET manifest.
Moreover in the same chapter Longchenpa explains that the second aspect of tatagathagarba, that is the manifest potential, it gets to be made manifest through the purification by the application of boddhicita and other practices that are specific to the path of learning, skilful means and wisdom , the accumulation of merit and wisdom.

Now i will want to bring to your attention what Rongdzom's view on the matter is and what i think it perfectly corresponds to the actual view of dzogchen.

First in the garland of views we find the following:Thus the ten directions, the three times, the three worlds and so forth
All compounded and uncompounded phenomena do not exist apart from one’s mind .
In fact it is said :
Clear understanding of one’s mind is actually the enlightenment of the Buddhas
It is the three worlds .
It is the great elements.

Rongdzompa comments that clear understanding of one’s mind means understanding perfectly the nature of one’s mind. In this regard the customary explanation is that when the mind is deluded this is samsara (or covered by circumstantial and temporary stains –see tathagatagarbha-utaratantra) while when it has understanding and is no longer deluded this is enlightenment. But this does not correspond to the Dzogchen tradition AS IT IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LESSER VEHICLES (TATAGATHAGARBA).So here where the true Dzogchen tradition is explained one must understand that, EVEN THOUGH ALL PHENOMENA APPEAR AS MIND, APPEARANCE ITSELF IS THE NATURE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE BUDDHAS.

“The path of the supreme yoga it is not the path of accomplished sages of the past. Whoever enters onto the path of the sages of the past will end up gripped by the sicknesses of the path - meditation, attachment, and exertion.”Thig le drug pa.

“Everything of the universe of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arises as the enlightened energy of the one self-perfected Natural Presence. But these teachers still mistakenly teach that disciples should fabricate enlightenment by applying discipline, renunciation, interruption, purification and transformation”.

The tatagatagarbha chapter from Longhenpa's trilogy of rest explains...

I directed you to look at the Tshig don mdzod, chapter three. He introduces the chapter saying, "Then, the explanation of how buddhagarbha permeates the sattvadhātu and the way it is exists.

He begins by quoting the Mirror of the Essence of Vajrasattva above. He then cites the Fine Inlay ofJewels:

Just as oil has always been naturally present in
sesame or mustard seed,
within the deceptive appearance of the bodies of sentient beings
the seed of the tathāgatas
appears with matching light.

The Sound Tantra states:

The pristine consciousness of one's vidyā abides in the body,
like oil in sesame seed.
The glow and brightness of the body
has always been permeated with the moistness of pristine consciousness.

And the Self-Arisen Vidyā:

The transcendent state of perfect buddhas
exists in the forms of kāyas and pristine consciousness
in the personal continuums of all sentient beings.

Having introduced these citations, he turns to sūtras and tantras of the common vehicles, citing long passages from the Nirvana Sūtra, Hevajra, the Dohas and so on, concluding that all of these citations together, including those from the man nga sde tantras above, demonstrate the existence of the sugatagarbha element in the continuums of sentient beings. He then goes on to criticize those who maintain that sugatagarbha is merely the emptiness of the mind itself, and so on. He then goes on to describe how the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is definitive, and so on. Finally describing how sugatagarbha is present as five kāyas, five pristine consciousnesses, the five lights, the five families, the five vāyus of pristine consciousness, the five qualities of essence, nature, and compassion, the five afflictions, the five aggregates, the five elements, the five sense organs, the five desirable objects, and the five qualities of the three doors, citing the String of Pearls Tantra which explains all of this.

For Longchenpa the pristine consciousness of vidyā is nothing other than tathāgatagarbha. And according to ChNN, there is no Tibetan whose writings on the Great Perfection are more definitive than Longchenpa's. So we can understand the above to be ChNN's own view as well.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The view is that the so-called external world is not mind, nor is it other than mind.

Adepts such as Longchenpa were very cautious in their explanation of this issue and are in no way advocating for a concrete, artifact-like external world.

Can someone summarize the explanation of this point? Sorry if this is an intrusion. In my studies of Alan Wallace's introduction to Dzogchen, he seems to articulate that space and everything we experience is a manifestation of our own pristine awareness. I'm curious how this coincides here with this point.

The view is that the so-called external world is not mind, nor is it other than mind.

Adepts such as Longchenpa were very cautious in their explanation of this issue and are in no way advocating for a concrete, artifact-like external world.

Can someone summarize the explanation of this point? Sorry if this is an intrusion. In my studies of Alan Wallace's introduction to Dzogchen, he seems to articulate that space and everything we experience is a manifestation of our own pristine awareness. I'm curious how this coincides here with this point.

This more consistent with the mind series. The Man ngag sde series maintains that appearances are the rtsal or potential of vidyā (rig pa). This potential becomes the mind when it mixes with the karmavāyu from our breathing. This point is discussed in the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

This more consistent with the mind series. The Man ngag sde series maintains that appearances are the rtsal or potential of vidyā (rig pa). This potential becomes the mind when it mixes with the karmavāyu from our breathing. This point is discussed in the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu.

Thanks Malcolm! I am new to some of these terms, so please pardon my ignorance here. To restate in my own small terms, would it be safe to say that what you stated regarding the Man ngag sde series could be coarsely interpreted to say that when the potential of rigpa (which I get) mixes with with the energy of our past actions that it then becomes appearances? I'm new to the concept of karmavāyu but am certainly interested.

This more consistent with the mind series. The Man ngag sde series maintains that appearances are the rtsal or potential of vidyā (rig pa). This potential becomes the mind when it mixes with the karmavāyu from our breathing. This point is discussed in the Treasury of the Dharmadhātu.

Thanks Malcolm! I am new to some of these terms, so please pardon my ignorance here. To restate in my own small terms, would it be safe to say that what you stated regarding the Man ngag sde series could be coarsely interpreted to say that when the potential of rigpa (which I get) mixes with with the energy of our past actions that it then becomes appearances? I'm new to the concept of karmavāyu but am certainly interested.

You should study these teachings systematically under a qualified teacher. Not piecemeal from debates on the internet.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.